health hazard evaluation report heta 93-1000 ithaca … · 2002-06-14 · heta 93-1000-2406 niosh...

HEALTH HAZARD EVALUATIONREPORT

HETA 93-1000ITHACA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTTRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT

ITHACA, NEW YORK

This Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) report and any recommendations made herein are for the specific facility evaluated and may not be universally applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved. Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports



This Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) report and any recommendations made herein are for the specific facility evaluated and may not be universally applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved.


applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved. Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports



HETA 93-1000-2406 NIOSH INVESTIGATOR:MARCH 1994 Beth A. Donovan, M.H.S.ITHACA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTTRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENTITHACA, NEW YORK

I. SUMMARY

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a union requestfor a Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) at the Ithaca City School District TransportationDepartment. The employees were concerned about exposures to diesel exhaust, paint andlacquer solvents, and asbestos from brake pads. NIOSH investigators conducted a site visitin November 1993. The facility and its operations were observed and several personalbreathing zone and general area air samples were collected for elemental carbon andsolvents.

Elemental carbon samples were collected as a surrogate for diesel exhaust. Levels in thegarage and office area of the building appeared to be higher than the ambient airconcentration. Since NIOSH considers diesel exhaust a potential human carcinogen,recommendations for increased ventilation were made to reduce the diesel exhaust levels toas low as feasibly possible.

Neither painting nor brake pad procedures were being performed during the site visit. Theorganic solvent concentrations suggest that solvents are not a health hazard in the garage oroffice area when no painting is occurring. The exposures should be characterized duringpainting, however, and appropriate ventilation, such as a paint booth or local exhaustventilation (LEV) system, should be considered. NIOSH investigations at other work siteshave documented asbestos exposures during brake pad operations.

Environmental tobacco smoke appears to be a health hazard in this facility. Several workerssmoke inside the building. There is no smoking policy, nor any ventilation except anintermittently used wall exhaust fan in the garage. Recommendations are made to prohibitsmoking in the workplace or to at least provide a separate smoking room with a dedicatedventilation system for the employees.

The elemental carbon samples suggest that the diesel exhaust concentrations in thegarage and office areas of the Transportation Department building are elevated withrespect to the ambient levels. Because diesel exhaust is considered a potentialoccupational carcinogen, and environmental tobacco smoke is a known humancarcinogen, their concentrations should be reduced to the lowest feasible levels. Suggestions for reducing exposures are offered in the Recommendations section ofthis report.

KEYWORDS: SIC 4151 (school buses), diesel exhaust, elemental carbon, paint, organicsolvents, transportation department, environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)

Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 93-1000Page 2 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 93-1000Page 2 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 93-1000Page 2 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 93-1000

II. INTRODUCTION

On November 8 and 9, 1993, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health(NIOSH) conducted a Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) at the Ithaca City School DistrictTransportation Department at the request of the local section of the National EducationAssociation (NEA). There was concern of employee exposures to diesel exhaust, solvents,and asbestos from brake pads. The bus drivers, mechanics, and office workers were exposedto diesel exhaust; the mechanics and office workers were exposed to solvents; and themechanics were possibly exposed to asbestos during brake repair work. The facility and itsoperations were observed and several personal breathing zone and general area air sampleswere collected for elemental carbon (Ce) and solvents. The Ce samples were used to estimatethe exposure to diesel exhaust.

III. BACKGROUND

TheIthaca City School District Transportation Department is a single-story brick building situated afew miles west of the southwestern finger of Cayuga Lake. The building is divided equallybetween office/break rooms and a garage. There is one enclosed office, one room with threeopen office areas, a break room, and several storage rooms in the main building. The adjoininggarage, which is a little larger than the main building, has three bays with bus lifts, a small partsrepair shop, and a storage room along the entire back of the garage. One of the repair bays isalso the priming and painting area. The building has a furnace heating system, a few reliefexhausts, and two smoke-eater air filter units. The garage has a waste oil burner that is used forheat, ducted exhaust that connects to vehicle exhaust pipes when they are running in the garage,


and one through-the-wall exhaust fan that is operated during painting activities. Figure 1 showsthe layout of the building and garage.

The union request for an HHE was prompted by an individual who is no longer employedwith the Ithaca City School District, but the union felt that the present employees couldbenefit from an evaluation of potential hazards since there had been no previous industrialhygiene monitoring.

IV. EVALUATION CRITERIA

As a guide to the evaluation of the hazards posed by workplace exposures, NIOSH field staffemploy evaluation criteria for the assessment of a number of chemical (and physical) agents. The primary sources of environmental evaluation criteria for the workplace arethe following: (1) NIOSH Criteria Documents and Recommended Exposure Limits (RELs),(2) the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limits(PELs), and (3) the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)Threshold Limit Values (TLVs).1,2,3 The objective of these criteria for chemical agents is toestablish levels of exposure to which the vast majority of workers may be exposed withoutexperiencing adverse health effects.

Full-shift and shorter duration criteria are available depending on the specific physiologicproperties of the agent. Full-shift limits are based on the time-weighted average (TWA)airborne concentration of a substance that workers may be repeatedly exposed to during aneight or 10 hour work day, up to 40 hours a week for a working lifetime, without adversehealth effects. Some substances have short-term exposure limits (STELs) or ceiling limits(CLs) which are intended to supplement the full-shift criteria where there are recognizedirritative or toxic effects from brief exposures to high airborne concentrations. STELs arebased on 15 minute TWA concentrations, whereas CL concentrations should not be exceededeven momentarily.

Occupational health criteria are established based on the available scientific informationprovided by industrial experience, animal or human experimental data, or epidemiologicstudies. Differences between the NIOSH RELs, OSHA PELs, and ACGIH TLVs may existbecause of different philosophies and interpretations of technical information. It should benoted that RELs and TLVs are guidelines, whereas PELs are standards which are legallyenforceable. OSHA PELs are required to take into account the technical and economicalfeasibility of controlling exposures in various industries where the agents are present. TheNIOSH RELs are primarily based upon the prevention of occupational disease withoutassessing the economic feasibility of the affected industries and as such tend to beconservative. A Court of Appeals decision vacated the OSHA 1989 Air ContaminantsStandard in AFL-CIO v OSHA, 965F.2d 962 (11th cir., 1992); and OSHA is now enforcingthe previous 1971 standards (listed as Transitional Limits in 29 CFR 1910.1000, Table Z-1-A).2 However, some states which have OSHA-approved State Plans will continue to enforcethe more protective 1989 limits. NIOSH encourages employers to use the 1989 limits or theRELs, whichever are lower.

ACGIH is not a government agency, it is a professional organization whose members areindustrial hygienists or other professionals in related disciplines and are employedin the public or academic sector. TLVs are developed by consensus agreement of theACGIH TLV committee and are published annually. The documentation supporting theTLVs (and proposed changes) is periodically reviewed and updated if believed necessary bythe committee. It is not intended by the ACGIH for TLVs to be applied as the thresholdbetween safe and dangerous exposures.


Not all workers will be protected from adverse health effects if their exposures aremaintained below these occupational health exposure criteria. A small percentage mayexperience adverse effects due to individual susceptibility, a pre-existing medical condition,previous exposures, and/or a hypersensitivity (allergy). In addition, some hazardoussubstances may act in combination with other workplace exposures, or with medications orpersonal habits of the worker (such as smoking) to produce health effects even if theoccupational exposures are controlled to the limit set by the evaluation criterion. Thesecombined effects are often not considered by the chemical specific evaluation criteria. Furthermore, many substances are appreciably absorbed by direct contact with the skin andthus potentially increase the overall exposure and biologic response beyond that expectedfrom inhalation alone. Finally, evaluation criteria may change over time as new informationon the toxic effects of an agent become available. Because of these reasons, it is prudent foran employer to maintain worker exposures well below established occupational healthcriteria.

Diesel Exhaust

Based on findings of carcinogenic responses in exposed rats and mice, NIOSHrecommends that whole diesel exhaust be considered a potential occupational carcinogenand that exposures be reduced to the lowest feasible concentration.4 In addition to thecarcinogenic effects, eye irritation and reversible pulmonary function changes have beenexperienced by workers exposed to diesel exhaust.4-7

Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture that consists of both a gaseous and particulatefraction. The composition will vary greatly with fuel and engine type, maintenance,tuning, and exhaust gas treatment.4,8 The gaseous constituents include carbon dioxide,carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide, oxides of sulfur, and hydrocarbons. Theparticulate fraction (soot) of diesel exhaust is comprised of solid carbon cores producedduring the combustion process. More than 95% of these particles are less than 1 microndiameter (:md) size. It has been estimated that up to 18,000 different substances fromthe combustion process can be adsorbed onto diesel exhaust particulates.4 Up to 65% ofthe total particulate mass may be these adsorbed substances and includes compoundssuch as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), some of which are carcinogenic.4 Particles in this size range are considered respirable because when inhaled they reach thedeeper, non-ciliated portions of the lungs where they may be retained. In general,particles greater than 7-10 :md are all removed in the nasal passages and have littleprobability of penetrating to the lung. Particles smaller than this can reach the air-exchange regions (alveoli, respiratory bronchioles) of the lung, and are considered morehazardous.

As noted, based on the results of laboratory animal and human epidemiology studies,NIOSH considers whole diesel exhaust to be a potential occupational carcinogen.4 Thestudies of rats and mice exposed to diesel emissions, especially the particulate portion,confirmed an association with lung tumors.4 Human epidemiology studies also suggestan association between occupational exposure to whole diesel exhaust and lung cancer.4,9

In addition to the carcinogenic potential, many other components of diesel exhaust haveknown toxic effects. These effects include pulmonary irritation from nitrogen oxides,eye and mucous membrane irritation from sulfur dioxide and aldehyde compounds, andchemical asphyxiation effects from CO. Exposure criteria has been established for someof these compounds; however, there are no exposure limits directly applicable toevaluation of whole diesel exhaust emissions.

Assessing worker exposure to diesel exhaust is difficult because of the complex makeupof emissions, uncertainty about which specific agent(s) may be responsible for the


carcinogenic properties, and the effect of other potential sources of similar compounds(e.g., tobacco smoke particles are also primarily < 1 :md). Measurements of somecommonly found components of diesel exhaust have generally shown concentrations tobe well below established exposure criteria. Efforts have focused on evaluating theparticulate portion because most studies have associated the carcinogenic potential ofdiesel exhaust with the particulate fraction. NIOSH is currently investigating the use ofCe as a surrogate index of exposure. The use of Ce holds promise because the samplingand analytical method is very sensitive, and a high percentage of diesel particulate(80-90%) is Ce, whereas tobacco smoke particulate is composed primarily of organiccarbon.10 Although exposure criteria has not been established, sampling was conductedfor Ce to determine the relative diesel emission levels in different areas, and to providebaseline information that could be useful for assessing the effectiveness of future controlmeasures.

Table 1

Guidelines and Standards Relevant to Air Monitoring at the Ithaca City School DistrictTransportation Department

Substance NIOSH REL1 OSHA PEL2 ACGIHTLV3

Principle Health Effects1,14

EGBE 5 ppm (skin) 50 ppm (skin) 25 ppm (skin) eye/respiratory irritation; tissue irritation;hematopoietic system effects; CNSdepression

Isopropanol 400 ppmSTEL 500 ppm

400 ppm 400 ppm eye/respiratory irritation; possiblecarcinogenic effects

PGME/PGMEA* 100 ppmSTEL 150 ppm

none 100 ppm eye/respiratory irritation;CNS depression

1,1,1-trichloroethane

CL 350 ppm 350 ppm 350 ppm eye irritation; dizziness,CNS depression; liver andcardiovascular effects

toluene 100 ppmSTEL 150 ppm

200 ppmCL 300 ppm

100 ppm eye.respiratory irritation; fatigue,headache, CNS depression

xylene 100 ppmSTEL 150 ppm

100 ppm 100 ppm eye/respiratory irritation; headache,CNS depression

EGBE = ethylene glycol monobutyl etherPGME = propylene glycol monomethyl etherCL = ceiling limitSTEL = short term exposure limit (15 minute time-weighted average) ppm = parts per millionmg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter

* Propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate (PGMEA) is rapidly metabolized to PGME in the body, and therefore theexposure criteria for PGME are applied to PGMEA as well.15

Organic Solvents

Many industrial solvents are irritants of the eyes, mucous membranes, and upperrespiratory tract, and can cause defatting of the skin and dermatitis.11 Exposure toorganic solvents can occur through inhalation of the vapors, skin contact with the liquid,or ingestion. As many organic solvents have relatively high vapor pressures and readilyevaporate, inhalation of vapors is considered a primary route of exposure. Overexposure


to many organic solvents can result in irritation, central nervous system depression,headache, nausea, and possible effects on the liver, kidney or other organs.11-13 Biological effects of exposure can range from practically non-toxic (e.g., some freons) tohighly toxic (e.g., carbon tetrachloride) or to carcinogenic (e.g., benzene).13 Table 1summarizes the principle health effects associated with the solvents evaluated in thissurvey, and lists the relevant guidelines and standards -- NIOSH RELs, OSHA PELs, andACGIH TLVs.

V. METHODS OF EVALUATION

The site visit consisted of a walk-through of the facility, observations of work practices,review of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), and collection of personal breathing zone(PBZ) and general area (GA) air samples. Air samples were collected for solvents and forCe, which is used to estimate diesel exhaust exposure. Solvents were collected on ThermalDesorption tubes with Gillian® low-flow pumps at 50 milliliters per minute (ml/min) forqualitative analysis, and on charcoal tubes with Gillian® low-flow pumps at 200 ml/min forquantitative analysis, based on the compounds that were identified by the qualitativeanalysis. All of the solvent samples were GA except for one PBZ on a mechanic during apriming process. Four GA samples were taken in the garage and two in the office area.

Diesel exhaust exposure was estimated by measuring the concentration of Ce. A single-stagepersonal impactor was used to sample submicrometer-sized diesel particles on quartz fiberfilters.10 The filters were then analyzed by a thermal-optical method to quantitate theelemental carbon concentration. Five PBZ air samples were collected for Ce, two bus driversand three mechanics. Also, two GA samples were collected in the garage, one in the officearea, and one outside approximately 200 yards from the building and bus parking lot.

VI. OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS

The office workers reported that exhaust and solvent odors often migrate into the office area. Thus, some GA samples were collected in the office area for Ce and solvents, as well as inthe garage. When the exhaust fan in the garage is not operating and the smoke-eater in theopen office area is off, the office area is at a slightly negative pressure to the garage. Turning on the garage exhaust fan does bring the two areas to about equal pressure, but not ifthe smoke-eater is operating. When the "smoke-eater" is on, regardless of the garage exhaustfan, air flows into the office area from the garage. Smoking is permitted at this workplace.

On the day of sampling, no buses were left running while in the garage. Basic maintenance/mechanic work was being performed on the buses, and one section of abus was primed to prepare it for painting. The priming process occurred at 2:50 pm andlasted only about one minute, thus no significant sampling was conducted during painting orpriming. No brake pad work occurred during our site visit.

The painting area does not contain a paint booth or any local exhaust ventilation (LEV). Dueto complaints of solvent odors from the office workers, no painting occurs during workhours, only priming. A mechanic returns at night or on weekends to paint. The mechanicwears a 3M® Easicare Dual Cartridge Respirator for Paint Spray Assembly. However, thereis no fit-testing or medical surveillance program. Goggles are worn, but no gloves are wornduring the priming or painting processes.

The Thermal Desorption tube samples revealed the presence of about 50 differentcompounds in the air. The results are displayed in Appendix A. Based on the estimatedamounts of each compound, which ones appeared consistently, and the analytical methods


available for quantitation, seven compounds were selected to be quantified -- isopropanol,1,1,1-trichloroethane, toluene, xylene, propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate (PGMEA),and ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE). The solvent area air sample concentrationswere relatively low, approximately three orders of magnitude lower than the standards. Isopropyl alcohol, EGBE, and PGMEA were not detected in any of the samples. In theoffice area, the levels were either not detected or detected, but below the minimalquantifiable concentrations. In the garage area, the levels for 1,1,1-trichloroethane, toluene,and xylene were all less than 0.60 parts per million (ppm).

The Ce sampling results are displayed in Table 2. Area air sample levels ranged from 2.5micrograms per cubic meter (:g/m3) outside, across the employee parking lot, to 14 :g/m3 inthe garage. The garage mechanics both had personal sample concentrations of 13 :g/m3, andDriver 1 and Driver 2 had concentrations of 7.2 and 5.9 :g/m3, respectively. These Ce levelsare only 5% to 28% of the total carbon concentrations. The organic carbon (Co)concentrations on the sampling filters, 72% to 95% of the total carbon, could only in part befrom diesel exhaust, which is only usually 10% to 30% Co.10 Other sources of Co are fromcigarette smoke (which has submicrometer-sized particles and could thus be collected on thefilters), degreasing solvents, grease, and oil. Tobacco smoke has been found contain on theorder of less than 2% Ce.10


Table 2

Personal and Area Air Sampling Results for Elemental Carbon, 11/9/93Ithaca City School District Transportation Department

HETA 93-1000

Sample Site SampleVolume

(L)

ElementalCarbon (Ce)

(::::g/m3)

OrganicCarbon (Co)

(::::g/m3)

Total Carbon(Ct) (::::g/m3)

Ce/CtRatio

GA - office 1852 4.8 86 91 0.05

GA - garage 1848 13 35 49 0.27

GA - garage 2032 14 36 50 0.28

PBZ - mechanic 1 1740 13 87 100 0.13

PBZ - mechanic 2 1952 13 39 52 0.25

PBZ - driver 1 1328 7.2 52 59 0.12

PBZ - driver 2 1284 5.9 42 48 0.12

GA - outside 1420 2.5 18 21 0.12

:g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meterGA = general area air samplePBZ = personal breathing zone air sample

VII. CONCLUSIONS

Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is a health hazard at this workplace. Not only issmoking permitted, but also there is no mechanical ventilation system in the building. Theexhaust fan in the garage only operates during painting procedures and does not provide anyventilation for the office area.

The Ce levels suggest that diesel exhaust concentrations are elevated in the garage and officebuilding as compared with the ambient concentration, and that the levels in the garage aremore than double the levels in the office area. In a study of Ce exposure in the truckingindustry, Zaebst et. al. found average Ce levels of 23.5 :g/m3 for dock workers (n = 75), 26.6:g/m3 for mechanics (n = 80), 5.4 :g/m3 for local drivers (n = 56), 5.1 :g/m3 for road drivers(n = 72), a highway background of 3.4 :g/m3 (n = 21), and a residential background of 1.4:g/m3 (n = 23).10 Zaebst also mentions that levels ranging from 17 to 134 :g/m3 have beenmeasured in the railroad industry.10

The organic solvents do not appear to be a health hazard when the mechanics are notpainting. The painting process, however, should not be occurring in an open room withoutany ventilation.


VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. To help reduce the migration of exhaust and solvent vapors into the building, the garageshould be kept at a pressure that is negative with respect to the building so that air flowsfrom the office area into the garage, not from the garage into the office area. Operatingthe existing garage exhaust fan when the garage or building is occupied, as well asadding an additional exhaust system to the garage, will further reduce the diesel exhaustexposures. In addition, a second door could be added in the small hallway between thebuilding and the garage.

2. The painting area must be designated and properly controlled. A spray booth cancontrol the accumulation of vapors and particulates that may pose a fire, an explosion, ora health hazard. With appropriate ventilation in the spray booth, workers may notrequire the use of respiratory protection.

3. Proper personal protective equipment should be worn during the priming and paintingprocesses. Gloves that protect skin from general solvents, such as neoprene or nitrile,and eye protection should always be worn. Respirators, if necessary, must be fitproperly to their user. If a paint booth or local exhaust ventilation (LEV) systemprovides enough ventilation, the painter may not require respiratory protection. Industrial hygiene monitoring can characterize the exposure and determine if it isappropriate.

If respirator use is necessary, implement a Respiratory Protection Program that providesmedical surveillance and fit-testing for employees who use respirators, in accordancewith the requirements described in 29 CFR 1910.134.16 Publications developed byNIOSH which should also be referenced when developing an effective respiratorprogram include NIOSH Respirator Decision Logic and the NIOSH Guide to IndustrialRespiratory Protection.17,18 It is recommended that the written program be revised todesignate one individual with the responsibility for administering the respiratoryprotection program. The written respirator program should also contain information onthe following topics: (a) the departments/operations which require respiratoryprotection; (b) the correct respirators required for each job/operation; (c) specificationsthat only NIOSH/MSHA approved respiratory devices shall be used; and (d) the criteriaused for the proper selection, use, storage and maintenance of respirators, includinglimitations. The respirator program should also reference the requirements contained inthe confined space program to assure that employees are adequately protected whenworking in these areas. A respiratory protection program should include the followingelements:

a. Written operating procedures.b. Appropriate respirator selection.c. Employee training.d. Effective cleaning of respirators.e. Proper storage.f. Routine inspection and repair.g. Exposure surveillance.h. Program review.i. Medical approval.j. Use of approved respirators.

4. Cigarette smoking should not be permitted in the building or a separate smoking roomneeds to be established. ETS has been shown to be casually associated with lung cancerand cardiovascular disease in adults, and respiratory infections, asthma, middle eareffusion, and low birth weight in children.19-21 It is also a cause of annoying odor andsensory irritation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified ETS


as a known human (Group A) carcinogen.22 NIOSH considers ETS to be a potentialoccupational carcinogen and believes that workers should not be involuntarily exposedto tobacco smoke.23

ETS consists of exhaled mainstream smoke from the smoker and sidestream smokewhich is emitted from the smoldering tobacco. ETS consists of between 70 and 90%sidestream smoke. More than 4000 compounds have been identified in laboratory-basedstudies, including many known human toxins and carcinogens such as CO, ammonia,formaldehyde, nicotine, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, benzo(a)pyrene, benzene,cadmium, nickel, and aromatic amines.24,25 Many of these toxic constituents are moreconcentrated in sidestream than in mainstream smoke.26 In studies conducted inresidences and office buildings with tobacco smoking, ETS was a substantial source ofmany gas and particulate polycyclic aromatic compounds.27

The most direct and effective method of eliminating ETS from the workplace is toprohibit smoking in the workplace. To facilitate elimination of tobacco use, employersshould implement smoking cessation programs. Management and labor should worktogether to develop appropriate nonsmoking policies that include some or all of thefollowing:


! Distribute information about health promotion and the harmful effects ofsmoking.

! Offer smoking-cessation classes to all workers.

! Establish incentives to encourage workers to stop smoking.

Until this measure can be achieved, employers can designate separate, enclosed areas forsmoking, with separate ventilation. Air from this area should be exhausted directlyoutside and not recirculated within the building or mixed with the general dilutionventilation for the building. Ventilation of the smoking area should meet generalventilation standards, such as ASHRAE Standard 62-1989, which suggests theintroduction of 60 cubic feet per minute of outside air per person, and the smoking areashould have slight negative pressure to ensure airflow into the area rather than back intothe airspace of the workplace.23

IX. REFERENCES

1. CDC [1992]. NIOSH recommendations for occupational safety and health:compendium of policy documents and statements. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control,National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) PublicationNo. 92-100.

2. Code of Federal Regulations [1992]. OSHA Table Z-1. 29 CFR 1910.1000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Federal Register.

3. ACGIH [1993]. 1993-1994 Threshold limit values for chemical substances andphysical agents and biological exposure indices. Cincinnati, OH: AmericanConference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

4. NIOSH [1988]. Current intelligence bulletin 50: carcinogenic effects of exposure todiesel exhaust. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute forOccupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 88-116.

5. Gamble J, Jones, W, Mishall S [1987]. Epidemiological-environmental study ofdiesel bus garage workers: acute effects of NO2 and respirable particulate on therespiratory system. Env Rsch 42(1):201-214.

6. Reger R, Hancock J [1980]. Coal miners exposed to diesel exhaust emissions. In: Rom, W, Archer, V, eds. Health implications of new energy technologies. AnnArbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc, pp 212-231.

7. Ulfvarson U, Alexandersson R [1990]. Reduction in adverse effect on pulmonaryfunction after exposure to filtered diesel exhaust. Am J Ind Med 17(3):341-347.

8. ILO [1983]. Todradze, C, diesel engines, underground use of. In: Encyclopedia ofOccupational Health and Safety. Vol I/a-k. Geneva: International Labour Office.

9. Garshick E, Schenker MB, Munoz A, Segal M, Smith TJ, Woskie SR, Hammond SK,Speizer FE [1987]. A case-control study of lung cancer and diesel exhaust exposurein railroad workers. Am Rev Respir Dis 135(6):1242-1248.


10. Zaebst D, Clapp D, Blade L, Marlow D, Steenland K, Hornung R, Scheutzle D, ButlerJ [1991]. Quantitative determination of trucking industry workers' exposure to dieselexhaust particles. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 52(12):529-541.

11. Cone JE [1986]. Health hazards of solvents. In: State of the Art Reviews: Occupational Medicine 1(1):69-87.

12. Axelson O, Hogstedt C [1988]. On the health effects of solvents. In: Zenz C, ed. Occupational medicine, principles and practical applications. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: Year Book Medical Publishers, Inc. p. 775.

13. Doull J, Klaassen C, Amdur MO, eds [1980]. Casarett and Doull's toxicology: thebasic science of poisons, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company,Inc.

14. Proctor NH, Hughes JP, Fischman MF [1988]. Chemical hazards of the workplace,2nd ed. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company.

15. NIOSH [1991]. NEG and NIOSH basis for an occupational health standard: propylene glycol ethers and their acetates. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control,National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) PublicationNo. 91-103.

16. Code of Federal Regulations [1993]. 29 CFR 1910.134. Respiratory protection. Washington, DC: Occupational Safety and Health Agency, U.S. Department ofLabor, U.S. Government Printing Office.

17. NIOSH [1987]. NIOSH respirator decision logic. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control,National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) PublicationNo. 87-108.

18. NIOSH [1987]. NIOSH guide to industrial respiratory protection. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers forDisease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS(NIOSH) Publication No. 87-116.

19. DHHS [1986]. The health consequences of involuntary smoking. A report of thesurgeon general. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public HealthService, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Smoking and Health,DHHS (PHS) Publication No. 87-8398.

20. Taylor AE, Johnson DC, Kazemi H [1992]. Environmental tobacco smoke andcardiovascular disease: a position paper from the council on cardiopulmonary andcritical care. Dallas, TX: American Heart Association.

21. Martin TR, Braken MB [1986]. Association of low birth weight passive smoke andexposure in pregnancy. American Journal of Epidemiology 124:633-42.

22. EPA [1993]. Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: Lung cancer and otherdisorders. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Publication No.EPA/600/6-90/006F.


23. NIOSH [1989]. Current intelligence bulletin 54: environmental tobacco smoke in theworkplace: lung cancer and other health effects. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control andPrevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)Publication No. 91-108.

24. Löfroth G [1989]. Environmental tobacco smoke: overview of chemical compositionand genotoxic components.

25. Claxton L, Morin R, Hughes T, Lewtas J [1989]. A genotoxic assessment ofenvironmental tobacco smoke using bacterial bioassays. Mutation Research222(2):81-100.

26. Glantz SA, Parmley WW [1991]. Passive smoking and heart disease epidemiology,physiology, and biochemistry. Circulation 83:633-42.

27. Offermann FJ, Loiselle SA, Hodgson AT, Gundel LA, Daisey JM [1991]. A pilotstudy to measure indoor concentrations and emissions rates of polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons. Indoor Air 4:497-512.

X. INVESTIGATORS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Investigator: Beth A. Donovan, M.H.S.Industrial HygienistIndustrial Hygiene Section

Field Assistant: Gregory Kinnes, M.S., C.I.H.Industrial HygienistIndustrial Hygiene Section

Originating Office: Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance BranchDivision of Surveillance, Hazard

Evaluations and Field Studies

XI. DISTRIBUTION AND POSTING

Copies of this report may be freely reproduced and are not copyrighted. Single copies of thisreport will be available for a period of 90 days from the date of this report from the NIOSHPublications Office, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226. To expedite yourrequest, include a self-addressed mailing label along with your written request. After thistime, copies may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS),5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Information regarding the NTIS stocknumber may be obtained from the NIOSH Publications Office at the Cincinnati address.

Copies of this report have been sent to:

1. Ithaca City School District Employees' Association2. Ithaca City School District Transportation Department3. New York State Department of Labor

APPENDIX A

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THERMAL DESORPTION TUBESFOR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1

adz1